Look who I finally met! Check out the latest from Strobel:
“Christians should understand that being able to give reasons for their faith is not merely an option – it’s biblically mandated, says apologetics author and speaker Lee Strobel.
To help Christians better explain and defend their faith, Strobel and ministry associate Mark Mittelberg have launched The Institute at Cherry Hills, an apologetics and evangelism ministry at Cherry Hills Community Church in Highlands Ranch, Colo. The institute is aimed at innovating new approaches to defending and sharing the faith.
Strobel and Mittelberg will kick off a series of national simulcasts to be hosted at churches starting in March with the event “The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask,” based on Mittelberg’s book by the same title.
While an atheist, Strobel began to write a book disproving the existence of Jesus…(click here to continue reading).”
MJ
I'm afraid I don't think much of Strobel's approach. We think we're going to get a reporter's objective look at things, but his work is completely one-sided.
More: Lee Strobel's Fragile Argument.
Hey G.U.! Thanks for leaving a comment.
I looked over your posted link. Two things stuck out to me, which are actually secondary issues to your overall argument against Strobel.
First, the statement regarding that Christian apologists use the "I used to be an atheist, just like you" argument. Does Lee Strobel actually say this somewhere? I think he just says he used to be an atheist. (I'd like to know if I am wrong on that so I can correct it.) Like your other blog post on this issue states, there are various kinds of atheists: uninformed and informed. Has he ever stated that he was informed on the atheist arguments before becoming a Christian?
You also stated that no informed atheist has ever converted to Christianity. Do you have something I could look at for those stats; like a study on the matter? I think that would be very interesting. One person did come to mind when I read this: C.S. Lewis. In your opinion, was C.S. Lewis an uninformed atheist before becoming a Christian? I could be wrong on this, but I believe he was rather informed on the atheist arguments (especially with regard to pagan myths) before becoming a Christian. I would need some kind of criterion for when a person crosses over from uninformed to informed to change my view on Lewis.
I also have two friends (one a former math professor and one a current PhD candidate in philosophy) who both were highly informed on the arguments for atheism as atheists, but who eventually became Christians. I realize this isn't a big enough sample for making any large arguments, but it would go against the argument that "no informed atheist" becomes a Christian.
However, that being said, I do appreciate your thoughts on (what I saw as) the difference between people who hold their beliefs with responsibility versus without responsibility.
Another interesting study would be on the people who professed Christianity and left. Specifically, a study on how they were engaging in both sides of the arguments before making their decision to leave. Also, what arguments were made in favor of the Christian view that were the biggest hurdle to changing their belief.
The second statement that stood out was the pagan myth parallel to Christ. What have you looked into as far as the philosophy behind the pagan religions? Have you found it to be any different from the philosophy behind Judaism and Christianity? I am finding two radically different views on the nature of reality. However, I do find themes that would be similar in all of them due to the nature of mankind and his search for meaning and origins.
Again, thank you for your post, Galileo Unchained!
MJ
Mr. Strobel, In a conversation with a young man who was raised in the church but has left the faith, I suggested he read one of your books (Case for a Creator). The following was his response; "And it is funny you brought up Lee Strobel. Every time I get in a debate with someone, they say "Have you read the Case for Faith/Christ/for a Creator? And I have read all of Lee Strobel's books. The fallacies he makes are truly too numerous to count. He is a lawyer – not a physicist, cosmologist, biologist, etc. He selectively interviews the 0.2% of the scientific community that thinks like he does, and often misquotes those who disagree with him. And his thoughts on the "fine-tuned universe", the odds of evolution taking place, etc. fail to take in basic variables that anyone who calls themselves a scientist or statistician should realize. His book might have made sense 50 years ago, but we know way too much now to even consider most of his premises. And this is my own review – not someone elses. He is purposely misleading people into thinking that we MUST be created. Nothing else pisses me off more.
So yes, I have read Lee Strobel. Lol.
Any suggestions as to what I can say in response?
Thanks,
Bill Kish
(By the way, I enjoy your books)
Hey Bill,
Let me suggest a couple of responses. First, ask the young man what Christian material he has read that he found difficult to refute. What arguments for the existence of God and/or Christianity are compelling? How has he responded to those arguments to conclude that they are false?
That's how I would start the conversation. However, if you want to respond point-for-point, I've put some ideas below.
//The fallacies he makes are truly too numerous to count.//
This is a fallacious statement: the books are limited in pages and are therefore only able to contain a limited amount of fallacies. He really must provide some evidence of fallacies, rather than a hyperbolic statement.
//He is a lawyer – not a physicist, cosmologist, biologist, etc.//
I believe Lee was a journalist, not a lawyer. But I think his assignment was on court cases and issues that would require a background in law.
//He selectively interviews the 0.2% of the scientific community that thinks like he does, and often misquotes those who disagree with him.//
Lee originally set out to disprove the Christians–including those who were scientists–by exposing their bad arguments. Who is he misquoting and what is the proper quote?
//And his thoughts on the "fine-tuned universe", the odds of evolution taking place, etc. fail to take in basic variables that anyone who calls themselves a scientist or statistician should realize.//
I believe "his thoughts" on the fine-tuned universe are actually quotes by and summations of the scientists he interviews. Also, this proposition doesn't make sense: "anyone who calls themselves a scientist…should realize." What about scientists who do not study in this field of science?
//His book might have made sense 50 years ago, but we know way too much now to even consider most of his premises.//
Too broad of a generalization here. This must be evidenced argument by argument.
//And this is my own review – not someone elses. He is purposely misleading people into thinking that we MUST be created. Nothing else pisses me off more.//
Now the young man is assuming motives: why assume the worst motive, which is of malicious intent? How does the young man know the worst motive here is the correct one?
So there are some reasons to be skeptical of the young man's critique. Really, I hope that you two can start a conversation based on Lee's books that will be fruitful to both of you.
For the young man's further reading, you might inquire of him if he has encountered J.P. Moreland, William Dembski, or Paul Nelson. He seems most interest in scientific arguments. Moreland's "Christianity and the Nature of Science" might be a good launching ground.
MJ
Hey Bill,
Let me suggest a couple of responses. First, ask the young man what Christian material he has read that he found difficult to refute. What arguments for the existence of God and/or Christianity are compelling? How has he responded to those arguments to conclude that they are false?
That's how I would start the conversation. However, if you want to respond point-for-point, I've put some ideas below.
//The fallacies he makes are truly too numerous to count.//
This is a fallacious statement: the books are limited in pages and are therefore only able to contain a limited amount of fallacies. He really must provide some evidence of fallacies, rather than a hyperbolic statement.
//He is a lawyer – not a physicist, cosmologist, biologist, etc.//
I believe Lee was a journalist, not a lawyer. But I think his assignment was on court cases and issues that would require a background in law.
//He selectively interviews the 0.2% of the scientific community that thinks like he does, and often misquotes those who disagree with him.//
Lee originally set out to disprove the Christians–including those who were scientists–by exposing their bad arguments. Who is he misquoting and what is the proper quote?
//And his thoughts on the "fine-tuned universe", the odds of evolution taking place, etc. fail to take in basic variables that anyone who calls themselves a scientist or statistician should realize.//
I believe "his thoughts" on the fine-tuned universe are actually quotes by and summations of the scientists he interviews. Also, this proposition doesn't make sense: "anyone who calls themselves a scientist…should realize." What about scientists who do not study in this field of science?
//His book might have made sense 50 years ago, but we know way too much now to even consider most of his premises.//
Too broad of a generalization here. This must be evidenced argument by argument.
//And this is my own review – not someone elses. He is purposely misleading people into thinking that we MUST be created. Nothing else pisses me off more.//
Now the young man is assuming motives: why assume the worst motive, which is of malicious intent? How does the young man know the worst motive here is the correct one?
So there are some reasons to be skeptical of the young man's critique. Really, I hope that you two can start a conversation based on Lee's books that will be fruitful to both of you.
For the young man's further reading, you might inquire of him if he has encountered J.P. Moreland, William Dembski, or Paul Nelson. He seems most interest in scientific arguments. Moreland's "Christianity and the Nature of Science" might be a good launching ground.
MJ